He / They

  • 28 Posts
  • 1.57K Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle





  • When it’s being employed properly, it’s absolutely an important tool, but the way they’re presented to most users, such as on-device biometric data stores (e.g. Apple’s secure enclave, or a TPM verification), aren’t the proper implementations. Nor is using biometrics as your primary auth method.

    It’s supposed to be “something you have and something you know and something you are”, not “have or know or are”.

    NIST standards for biometrics require the biometric data be stored on a secure remote server, and that the scanner device check against that during auth. Putting the biometric data on the device means that you’re losing a big part of your non-repudiation.

    And it’s even worse when you’re using a secondary factor (biometric) as your primary or only factor (e.g. a phone unlock), that grants access to your other factors like password store and OTP tokens.

    Biometrics are never supposed to be a single-factor auth method when used properly, but that’s how most people use them now, and it degrades their security.

    If your phone requires a passcode, a TOTP grant, and a biometric scan, by all means, please do employ biometrics, but if it’s going to be your only factor, DO NOT.

    Or, for simplicity to the average forum reader:

    Never use biometrics. It’s just not worth the tradeoffs.





  • When you are a member of a safe, advantaged group, and this choice is being made wholly voluntarily, I 100% agree (and am myself “childfree”).

    But telling a group that is under attack that they should not have kids is just furthering that group’s diminishment. Once Israel isn’t trying to wipe out Palestinians, and their survival isn’t at stake, and they can make that choice without duress, then it’s fair. Until then, this just seems to inherently create an argument that any group that is under threat should let itself die out rather than struggle on.

    Why would you have them in the first place when they aren’t likely to have an enjoyable life?

    Making a personal choice is one thing. Telling people that they shouldn’t, based on their socioeconomic situation, is entirely another. “Survival of the wealthiest” is not an ideology I can conclude to be moral.




  • I think it’s several different things

    1. a visual design aesthetic
    2. specific gameplay mechanics
    3. “legacy” systems and software

    I think each of them can differ in whether they’re fixed or not. Generally I think that in game design, retro is fairly anchored when it comes to visual aesthetics and gameplay design. “Boomer shooter” mechanics and visuals, pixel art games, etc. I suspect we’ll still see those ‘retro’ games in 20 years, and probably not see e.g. Ubisoft-style open world control-point-capture games being called retro.

    Consoles though, I do think shift into retro status very consistently. I think there are people who would even consider DS or certainly GBA games as retro already.



  • Don’t ever take media for granted. Back up everything yourself, and make it available to whoever you can.

    Politicians want to ban books and other media they dislike, and attacking “pirated” and “obscene” media is part of that path.

    Internet Archive thought that by being a legitimate org, they could avoid the anti-consumer, anti-education media-hoarding and denial of companies and the government, but the reality is that individuals were always going to have to be the ones to save media ourselves.






  • This reminds me of similar questions around both Atomic Heart and Hogwarts: Legacy, and I think there are a couple differences in both cases.

    In the case of Atomic Heart, part of the controversy was related to the sexualized robots that bear a traditional Ukranian hairstyle, and how subservient they are towards the player, as well as the way the USSR was depicted in general in the game. Taken together, a lot of people saw that as reflective of the current and common attitude of Ukraine being a subject state of Russia. So the monetary support for the devs were potentially directly benefiting people with questionable views.

    In the case of Hogwarts: Legacy, the connection to a bad actor is even more clear cut, wrt JKR. Abstaining from purchasing it was roundly discussed as a boycott of her and her views, even if she had minimal connection to the game itself (we know she did financially benefit from it, as she stated it herself on Xitter).

    I think this is one too many steps removed for me to condemn it in the same vein. Yes, Russia will benefit in tax revenue from it, but the studio isn’t state-owned or something; it’s no different than buying something made (in whole or part) in China giving tax money to the CCP to further Uighur genocide in Xinjiang, or tax money in the US going towards genocide in Gaza via military aid.

    I’m not saying you’re a hypocrite if you choose to not buy this but still pay US taxes, because ultimately the consequences that you face for those 2 actions is very different. I might say it’s hypocritical to buy Chinese goods though, given they are still trading with Russia and supplying them materials.

    Personally, I’m not going to treat all people as proxies for their government; that’s too close to collective punishment.